Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

News for nerds, stuff that matters

Slashdot Log In

Log In

Create Account  |  Retrieve Password

Suit Blames Videogames for Homicides

Posted by Zonk on Fri Sep 29, 2006 11:08 AM
from the people-no-longer-responsible-for-own-actions-film-at-11 dept.
An anonymous reader writes "Family members of three victims of a shooting by a 14-year-old have filed a $600 million lawsuit against the makers of Grand Theft Auto: Vice City. From the article: 'The $600 million lawsuit names several companies and Cody Posey, who it alleges played the game ''obsessively'' for several months before he shot his father, stepmother and stepsister in July 2004 ... The plaintiffs accuse the corporate defendants -- Sony Corporation of America, Take-Two Interactive Software Inc. and its subsidiary, Rockstar Games -- of a civil conspiracy, saying they should have foreseen their entertainment would spawn such copycat violence.'" It may or may not be a coincidence that Jack Thompson is the plaintiff's attorney.
+ -
story

Related Stories

[+] Games: FTC and Rockstar Settle Hot Coffee Dispute 295 comments
kukyfrope writes "The FTC and Rockstar/Take-Two have reached a settlement surrounding the 'Hot Coffee' mod for GTA: San Andreas that will serve to prevent future incidents. The FTC has stated that Rockstar and Take-Two must disclose all content to the ESRB when rating games, or face an $11,000 fine per violation if undisclosed content is discovered. 'Parents have the right to rely on the accuracy of the entertainment rating system. We allege that Take-Two and Rockstar's actions undermined the industry's own rating system and deceived consumers,' commented Lydia Parnes, Director of the FTC's Bureau of Consumer Protection."
[+] Games: Rockstar Finally Wins a Lawsuit 30 comments
Eurogamer is reporting that Rockstar Games has finally won a lawsuit. It's an important one too, involving a strip club's objection to its appearance (in satirized form) in the streets of San Andreas. From the article: "Rockstar conceded that its artists worked from photographs of real life LA locations - including the Play Pen - when designing the game, but argued that they 'changed the names, building designs and overall look and feel of the locations... To make them fit the virtual, cartoon-style world of San Andreas and the series' irreverent tone.' Rockstar also referred to the lawsuit MCA Records successfully defended over the song Barbie Girl, when the judge ruled that trademark rights 'do not entitle the owner to quash an unauthorized use of the mark by another who is communicating ideas or expressing points of view.'"
[+] Games: Jack Thompson Files Take-Two, Rockstar Lawsuit 451 comments
rtt writes "Jack Thompson is back on the video game scene and has followed through with his threat to file a law suit against Rockstar, Take-Two and Walmart for Rockstar's upcoming "Bully" title. bit-tech was sent a copy by the man himself which started as follows "Take-Two has until five o'clock p.m., Eastern time, Monday, August 14, 2006, to inform me in writing that it will forthwith provide me with a copy of Bully so that I and others can analyze it to determine whether it still poses a threat of copycat violence in our schools.""
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
 Full
 Abbreviated
 Hidden
More
Loading... please wait.
  • by malsdavis (542216) * on Friday September 29 2006, @11:09AM (#16245329)
    This suit has absolutely no chance of success. Apart from being naive in its entirety, it would go against many precedent cases.

    "Sam Donaldson's New Mexico ranch sued the makers of the video game ''Grand Theft Auto: Vice City'' on Monday, claiming the crimes would not have occurred had the teenager never played the violent game."

    He would never have shot them if he didn't have access to the gun either. Simply put, since gun makers aren't accountable for unintended actions carried out with their products, neither are game makers.

    "The game trained him ''how to point and shoot a gun in a fashion making him an extraordinarily effective killer."

    By that rationale, most action films would also be complicit in many homicides. This accusation has been thrown out of court so many times I won't even bother to cite individual cases.

    "The plaintiffs accuse the corporate defendants [...] of a ''civil conspiracy,'' saying they should have foreseen their entertainment ''would spawn such copycat violence"

    Again, gun and knife makers know their products can be used to commit homicides in the wrong hands yet can't be held accountable so neither can the game producers.

    I'm sure however their lawyers - who probably strongly encouraged them to pursue the case - will still get paid regardless of the absolute certainty that the case will fail.
    • by garcia (6573) on Friday September 29 2006, @11:18AM (#16245515) Homepage
      "The game trained him ''how to point and shoot a gun in a fashion making him an extraordinarily effective killer."

      Guns aren't difficult to use and, as you already pointed out, movies and TV also show you exactly how to hold and fire a gun that makes you just as effective. This comment is nothing more than hype to confuse the media and eventually the jury.

      The only difference I see between typical gun cases and video game cases is the money behind the gun cases coming from the pro-Second Ammendment folks.
      • by Thansal (999464) on Friday September 29 2006, @11:26AM (#16245715)
        My personal favorite for arguments like this (that the game trained him how to shoot a gun) is that they use it for EVERY case, including the ones where the game could NOT have trained him to use a gun (Like GTA).

        Trying this on on an FPS, I can sorta get (except for the lank of relation between an FPS gun and a real gun). However, tryign this out on a game where you AUTO AIM just does not work!

        cmon, I for am having a hard time finding the R1 button on my rifle so that it will aim at some one.....
      • by arth1 (260657) on Friday September 29 2006, @11:31AM (#16245817) Homepage Journal
        Guns aren't difficult to use and, as you already pointed out, movies and TV also show you exactly how to hold and fire a gun that makes you just as effective.

        More effective, even. At least in a movie you learn about recoil and sometimes even aim adjustments, and the bangs are much louder (not nearly what they are in real life, though -- unless the kid had been subjected to real gunfire before, his head ringing and being half dead after a shot must have come as a shock).

        Regards,
        --
        *Art
      • by general scruff (938598) on Friday September 29 2006, @11:41AM (#16246029) Journal
        Guns aren't difficult to use

        Ok, I can agree with that, however, it is an entirely different thing to point that gun at a human being and pull the trigger. I'm sure you are familiar with the anecdote regarding the percentage of soldiers in WWI that couldn't bring themselves to shoot another human being. Target practice at that time was a simple bullseye. When the target was changed to the sillouitte of a human, the percentage of those able to fire a gun at another human increased greatly.

        Now, instead of a sillouitte, we have a highly graphic representation of what killing someone is really like. You see them moan, hold thier abdomen, and cry out in agony. If you see that in a video game continously, what happens when those with the predisposition to violence finally snap? Now, instead of feeling remorse at the first dead victim, they feel like they can keep going because their brain is used the hearing the painfull pleas of a dying person.

        I don't think that violent video games are the only cause of all violence, and I don't think that everyone playing them will cause violence just because, and I certainly don't think that $600M will make any difference either way. But don't say that violent video games can't and don't cause ANY harm, because I will just right you off as biased, unreasoning, and ignorant.
        • by bmw (115903) * on Friday September 29 2006, @11:53AM (#16246243)
          Oh please... When it comes to video games and movies, I am one of the most violent, sick and twisted individuals you will ever meet. I love to torture, maim and kill. When it comes to real life, I am one of the most kind, caring people you will ever meet. It would be impossible for me to shoot or stab or bomb another human being and even attempting to do so would make me sick to my stomach. Violence in video games and movies does NOT desensitize you to violence in the real world.
        • by Damastus the WizLiz (935648) on Friday September 29 2006, @11:55AM (#16246279)
          I still blame parents. I have played video games all of my life I have never picked up a gun and shot someone. My parents taught me the line between fantasy and reality and reinforced it. My father taught me how to point and shoot a gun at the age of 5. He also taught me to respect them. If parents can't monitor what their kids are doing and teach them the difference between TV/Video games and the real world then how can children be expected to know. More so, if parents don't want them exposed to this level of violence then it is up to the parents to not give them access. How can anyone blame the maker of a video game for anything when it's the parents that put it into the kid's hands in the first place?
    • by JBHarris (890771) <bharris@i s f .com> on Friday September 29 2006, @11:21AM (#16245609)
      While I agree with your statement that this case has no chance of success, I come to my judgement based on the premise that those most DIRECTLY responsible are to blame.

      First, the child.
      Then, the parents that allowed him to play a violent game 'obsessively'.

      There really is no one else to blame. Not the gun manufacturer, not the game developer/publisher, not even society.

      To propose reasons as to why a person would commit a crime is to de-criminalize the perpetrator. It matters not WHY someone did something wrong, what matters is that they did it. To tell them it isn't there fault is to take away thier humanity. If we start down the road where a video game can make someone less human, then I propose all those people that blame video games for their actions be killed in the most inhumane way possible. I mean after all...they are less human by their own admission.

      On a completely different note, the child must not have learned too much from the video game. If he had studied the game closer, he would know that a flame thrower will get rid of all the police and if you find a blue star power-up it makes all the police attention go away....I bet he didn't even look for a blue star. n00b!

      Brad
    • by Corngood (736783) on Friday September 29 2006, @11:31AM (#16245827)
      It's easy, you just hold down the lock button, and then press the other buttons to cycle between targets. I'm not sure exactly where those buttons are on a real gun, but it shouldn't take long to find them.
  • by debus (751449) on Friday September 29 2006, @11:11AM (#16245369)
    Too funny, when I clicked on this story, the add that came up on the right was for GTA: Vice City Stories. Just goes to show that no publicity is bad publicity...
  • by Cyphertube (62291) on Friday September 29 2006, @11:13AM (#16245407) Homepage Journal

    Ok, so if the 14-year-old playing the rated "M" game (for those 17+) was playing obsessively for months, then I would argue that the fault lies with whomever was responsible for him. This sounds like the fault of parents/guardians to properly raise the child. Any child that plays ANYTHING obsessively (as in, to the exclusion of any other interests) clearly has some kind of mental/emotional problem and should have help sought for them.

    Failure to parent and seek help cannot be blamed on Sony, Take-Two, Rockstar or anyone else. However, the direct consequences of allowing the child to continue to act in an obsessive manner can be blamed directly on parental negligence.

    File for summary dismissal based on their own grounds for the suit.

    • by iapetus (24050) on Friday September 29 2006, @11:27AM (#16245741) Homepage
      Ok, so if the 14-year-old playing the rated "M" game (for those 17+) was playing obsessively for months, then I would argue that the fault lies with whomever was responsible for him.

      Typical kneejerk liberal response. "Ooh, let's blame the parents for letting him play an M-rated game!" "Ooh, let's blame the abusive father!" "Ooh, let's blame the parents who left guns lying around!" "Ooh, let's blame the people who failed to provide any sort of care for a mentally unwell child!" This just shows your complete lack of understanding of the fundamental point of this case and others like it.

      There's no way the parents could afford to pay out on a $600m lawsuit, even if they weren't already dead.

    • by varmittang (849469) on Friday September 29 2006, @11:38AM (#16245965) Homepage
      Remember, here in the U.S.A, we have reached a new age where NOBODY is responsible for their own actions. Remember that.

      Somebody: Holy shit! I killed somebody! Bob made me do it!
      Bob: Joe made me do it!
      Joe: I blame the media!
      Media: Videogames.
      Videogames: Personal responsibility?
      Personal Responsibility: AFK
  • by SRA8 (859587) on Friday September 29 2006, @11:14AM (#16245449)
    The current batch of video games are nothing but an unspoken "plan" to desensitize youth to violence and killing with the hopes of creating better soldiers for the coming clash of the civilizations. The government will never let such suits go through.
  • Rated M (Score:5, Insightful)

    by max8061 (693586) on Friday September 29 2006, @11:16AM (#16245481)
    Why not sue whoever was letting a 14 year old play a rated M game for hours on end? No, we must sue the ones with the most money instead. Great logic.
  • by jlebrech (810586) on Friday September 29 2006, @11:17AM (#16245495) Homepage
    I'm suing the makers of T.R.O.N
  • by Peter Trepan (572016) on Friday September 29 2006, @11:18AM (#16245529)
    She stomps mushrooms, shoots fireballs, and has demolished at least a dozen of my nice barrels with a massively oversized hammer.
  • by CyberLord Seven (525173) on Friday September 29 2006, @11:20AM (#16245565)
    It is the player's choice to kill, or rob, or rape, or maim. Just like in real life. I can ask you to do something vile and reprehensible, but it is always your choice as to whether or not you will comply.

    This reminds me of a woman I met a few weeks back. She told me she plays WoW but that she doesn't get too far in the game because she refuses to kill anything with a humanoid shape. In essense if it walks on two legs, has two arms and a head centered on the upright torso she will not kill it.

    She still enjoys the game, but she realises that she will never get too far. It's the same thing with GTA.

    By the way, in GTA:San Andreas you get to fly a plane. Why haven't we seen an increase in plane thefts if GTA is such a good tutor? In the many Spider-man and Batman games we see characters seinging from roof to roof. Why have'nt we seen an increase in morons trying this if video games are like Jedi and have so much influence on the weak-minded?

  • by Sloppy (14984) on Friday September 29 2006, @11:21AM (#16245597) Homepage Journal
    It's only a matter of time before Queen Elizabeth is assassinated by some bishop.
  • by iapetus (24050) on Friday September 29 2006, @11:22AM (#16245639) Homepage
    The game trained him "how to point and shoot a gun in a fashion making him an extraordinarily effective killer."

    Where can I buy one of those real-world guns with a slightly clunky auto-aim feature?

  • by rk (6314) * on Friday September 29 2006, @11:49AM (#16246179) Journal

    I've decided to climb a clock tower and take out half my hometown with a sniper rifle. I never would've done this if Jack Thompson didn't do what he does. As such, he is completely responsible for the deaths I cause.